On a daily basis this usually equates to a set work week, probably a weekend and non-work hours, maybe retirement on the horizon, educational institutions while growing up, with overlap. There's literally millions of other things to add here but I don't need to list them all. — schopenhauer1

Well, not necessarily. Most people I meet on a daily basis here in SE Asia are just like me, digital nomads and location-independent entrepreneurs. There is also the entire gig economy for people who do not necessarily want to subsist as a corporate wage slave.

With bitcoin being my monetary instrument of reference, I do not even really rely on the mainstream concept of money. For now, most people are a bit clueless -- what's new? -- and still want paper fiat money. Therefore, I just convert a thousandth of a cent of a bitcoin to hundreds of local dollar-like paper scrip, and give them the worthless crap that they want. Why not?

I cannot remember working from nine to five. I cannot remember commuting to an office on a daily basis.

If you don't want this, you have becoming destitute and homeless — schopenhauer1

In my experience, it is exactly the other way around. Most people who wage slave from paycheck to paycheck in that societal ideology of nine-to-five jobs, are only one paycheck away from homelessness.

They are in a situation with only downsides and no upside. Losing their job or getting divorced -- usually both at the same time -- will trigger an avalanche of attacks on their person and on their assets, if they even have any. They will often even end up behind on child support payments and spend time in jail. None of that could possibly affect the typical digital nomad, location-independent entrepreneur or people who cash in on the gig economy.

So is society itself a sort of ideology, a sort of "brand" that we as individuals perpetuate through the gateway of birth? It has a way-of-life. — schopenhauer1

People get sucked into the mainstream dead-end because they believe the manipulative lies that float around and convince them to join in.

The false beliefs of the mainstream, i.e. the lies that they believe in, are highly inconsistent. People get encouraged to find a job, which actually means, to find an employer. However, if everybody wants to be an employee, then who will be the employer? So, over time it becomes naturally harder to find such increasingly elusive jobs.

I think it is an ideology, forced in perpetuity on others. — schopenhauer1

It is not really "forced" onto you. You may just get sucked in, because you believe in it.

A shaitan is assigned to every human (with Jesus as exception), and shayatin are said to move through the blood of human. Sahih Muslim mentiones among the shayatin five sons of Iblis, who bring everyday calamities: Tir, “who brings about calamities, loses, and injuries; Al-A’war, who encourages debauchery; Sut, who suggests lies; Dasim, who causes hatred between man and wife; Zalambur, who presides over places of traffic." — Wikipedia on Shaitan

Al-A’war, Sut, and especially Dasim have gained control over western society. It is the shaitan named "Sut", the great liar, who has created the ideology that you have mentioned.

You can gradually escape, however, from the stronghold of Sut by asking Allah for forgiveness for your sins. Otherwise, you will sooner or later be pushed out of your wage-slave existence into one that consists of camping on skid row in Los Angeles, or into a similar situation, because in that case, that is your destiny.

All of this is interesting, but a bit off the mark as to what I mean by ideology. What you are discussing is INTRA-ideological debates (self-employed vs. employee, bit coin vs. other currency, etc.). My point is that generally speaking, LIVING itself requires a way of life (survival-through-economic-means for example), and that by birthing more people, you agree to force more people into this ideology. There is no way out of this ideology (of living generally to survive in some sort of economic system), once born, not even suicide.

survival-through-economic-means for example — schopenhauer1

Well, that would even turn breathing into an ideology. A lion has to hunt for larger animals of prey. So, he is forced into a survival-through-hunting ideology. I do not think that people use the term "ideology" in that sense.

There is no way out of this ideology (of living generally to survive in some sort of economic system), once born, not even suicide. — schopenhauer1

Being tributary to biological realities does not make that person subscribe to an ideology. Better examples of ideologies are communism, fascism or democracy.

An ideology is a set of beliefs and values attributed to a person or group of persons, especially as held for reasons which are not purely epistemic.[1][2] Formerly applied primarily to economic or political theories and policies, in a tradition going back to Karl Marx and Friederich Engels, more recent use treats the term as mainly condemnatory. — Wikipedia on the term ideology

Survival-through-economic-means is just a modern incarnation of survival-through-hunting. The reasons to do these things are purely epistemic. It would even be possible to experimentally test that a person not acquiring any calories at all on a daily basis ("starvation") would prematurely die. Hence, the survival-through-economic-means approach is not epistemically unsound.

All of this is interesting, but a bit off the mark as to what I mean by ideology. What you are discussing is INTRA-ideological debates (self-employed vs. employee, bit coin vs. other currency, etc.). My point is that generally speaking, LIVING itself requires a way of life (survival-through-economic-means for example), and that by birthing more people, you agree to force more people into this ideology. There is no way out of this ideology (of living generally to survive in some sort of economic system), once born, not even suicide. — schopenhauer1

Your question seems a conundrum if you interpret ideology as "simply ideas that people choose to believe" but ultimately has no justification really in the end. If some ideas in some ideologies, however, are simply true, and at least some truth is needed to live both individually and perpetuate a community, then it's no strange thing that society has a fairly broad consensus of things that just so happen to be true (eating poisonous mushrooms kills you for instance), and people who go outside this ideology (or rather just true things society has learned) die very quickly.

It is also not strange that entirely categories of tools that have no deducible "true or bestest form" society forms conventions about that get passes from one generation to the next. The typical example is language; we can reason that having words and grammar to express things is useful to have, but we cannot deduce the "best words" and so society picks new words or changes old ones when the want arises in no particularly coherent way. Likewise, some rules of conduct maybe deducible from reasoning or trial and error in a specific form, such as not eating the poison mushrooms or tolerating wanton murdering in the community, while other rules of conduct have no particular justification but are a useful reference point.

This broad ideology anthropologists generally call culture.

Being tributary to biological realities does not make that person subscribe to an ideology. Better examples of ideologies are communism, fascism or democracy. — alcontali

Some people really believe it's possible to subsist without eating and that various gurus have accomplished it. "Eating to live" is very much an ideology; it's more accurate to say we just happen to think it's actually true and dismiss the alternatives. If "living off sunlight" is an ideology, then so too is the alternative of "living off material food".

Likewise, the ideology of no ideology is of course itself an ideology. Trying to dismiss world views as ideological and "thus wrong" or "not justifiable really", is simply to claim one's ideology is right without introspection or defense compared to the alternatives.

Some people really believe it's possible to subsist without eating and that various gurus have accomplished it. "Eating to live" is very much an ideology; it's more accurate to say we just happen to think it's actually true and dismiss the alternatives. If "living off sunlight" is an ideology, then so too is the alternative of "living off material food". — boethius

The problem is the definition of the term "ideology", i.e. "beliefs held for reasons which are not purely epistemic". There is a legitimate justification for "eating to stay alive". Hence, the belief is not epistemically flawed. Concerning "living off sunlight", it would not be hard to experimentally test that a group of people exposed to sunlight would not survive longer than at most a few months. Hence, "living of sunlight (only)" is even trivially falsified. Therefore, it is a false belief.

The problem is the definition of the term "ideology", i.e. "beliefs held for reasons which are not purely epistemic". There is a legitimate justification for "eating to stay alive". Hence, the belief is not epistemically flawed. Concerning "living off sunlight", it would not be hard to experimentally test that a group of people exposed to sunlight would not survive longer than at most a few months. Hence, "living of sunlight (only)" is even trivially falsified. Therefore, it is a false belief. — alcontali

This is the exact process I am describing, you are simply using "ideology" as short hand for "my ideology is right".

Living off of sunlight is not trivially falsefiable. If you try it and die, it can simply be claimed you didn't "try hard enough". Your friend observing this may say that's moving the goalposts, but it can be claimed the goal posts were always that far away and you just didn't reach them, due to your arrogance and narrow western scientism dogma.

Now, I agree that living off sunlight is not possible and anyone who claims to have done it is delusional or a charlatan. However, if the history of philosophy teaches us anything, it is that no idea is held for "purely epistemic reasons". My agreement with your point is that, yes I haven't myself observed being able to live off sunlight, but as important is an entire scientific ideological edifice of assumptions not only about how the universe functions but also what and how the community of people claiming to investigate the universe believe and behave. There is no epistemic given that the community of scientists is trustworthy on these key points for instance; it is an ideological choice; and it is only accepting this ideology and the world view that follows from it really does yield more truth than not about the mechanics of physical cause and affect that it seems clear to me that living off sunlight really is impossible.

However, because I see clearly the ideological foundations of the scientific worldview, I can also see clearly it's limitations. That most science is actually a community product with a prerequisite shared ethic that cannot itself be derived from scientific principles and prerequisite institutional resources; and therefore, this shared ethic and institutional structure is not immune from manipulation by people who do not share the ethic in question. The ethic required for community produced scientific knowledge is an ideology and wherever I trust the scientific community I express my ideology of assuming those particularly scientists share enough of the prerequisite ideology.

Now, yes, there are some areas where the faith in the scientific community does not seem required, that the falsification exercise really has been carried out by competing groups or then resulting in technology I can investigate myself and deduce either the theory behind it is true or some structurally symmetrical substitute.

If I ignore these ideological components to my scientific beliefs then I am vulnerably to erroneously dismissing legitimate criticism that a part of the scientific community is acting in bad faith, and, likewise, I am unable to properly account for the reasons to have faith in other parts of the scientific community to people who have come to the common sense conclusion that scientific institutions can be manipulated.

Yes, fundamental physical theories tested by different universities and countries over decades and even centuries we can have very strong faith in. Unfortunately, the disciplines of psychology and economics and large parts of medicine are simply made up for profit; this behaviour can be investigated, and trust diminished where trust is not earned, but it is a complex task. Is it all false? no, but the best propaganda is mostly true and yet yields a radically different conclusion compared to removing the small amount of lies.

Ignoring the complexities that arise from accepting scientific knowledge can be manipulated results in even the good scientific institutions losing trust over time. At each moment, every secondary teacher and most professors, even if they see such manipulation, don't call it out with the justification that it will undermine very important things elsewhere. For instance, calling out the pharmaceutical industry's manipulation of the medical scientific community seems to invite casting doubt on man-made climate change and the urgency to act with respect to it. For, if the opium crisis resulted from a corrupt manipulation of the scientific medical community, why can't we assume the climate science community is likewise manipulated? Most academics basically use this sort of reasoning for turning a blind eye to corruption in other disciplines, or even their own discipline.

However, the problem is that corrupting the scientific process has real world consequences for people. People who were told "opiods, totally safe, science says so" by "scientific medical authorities" and live the terrible consequences are entirely valid in doubting the next important thing scientific institutions tell them to believe.

These issues are ideological. If distrust is too high, then essentially nothing important can be scientifically determined in the community product sense (which is nearly all scientific knowledge we can access), it's reasonable to just doubt everything. It is only from a ideological position with sufficient trust of people in general that one can plausibly differentiate the bad science from the good.

Yes, dismissing "living off light" seems simply true and not ideological, but the ideological framework required to make such a conclusion (law of non-contradiction, consistency of physical phenomena, trust in the scientific community's accepted fundamental theories that clearly demonstrate no way to live off sunlight), if ignored as a series of choices, invites intellectual disaster when things are not as clear. In otherwords, dismissing alternatives as ideological whereas one's own position is just "clear epistemic givens" is simply to assume one's ideology is correct and the other's are incorrect without any proper examination.

What you described might be best defined as the machinery of ideology. These mechanisms and systems essentially run on autopilot regardless of the individuals keeping it running. Many of them have been in place before you or I were born and will likely persist for generations to come, with slight variation.

When we are born into it we must, as a matter of self-preservation, learn to deal with the systems and machinery around us.

Unfortunately, the disciplines of psychology and economics and large parts of medicine are simply made up for profit; this behaviour can be investigated, and trust diminished where trust is not earned, but it is a complex task. Is it all false? no, but the best propaganda is mostly true and yet yields a radically different conclusion compared to removing the small amount of lies. — boethius

Psychology and economics were never blindly trusted and are widely considered to be mostly conjectural. Medicine has also always been distrusted to an important extent.

Nassim Taleb uses medicine as one of his primary examples, arguing that physical stress is good for you, and medicine is, with very few exceptions, bad.

Because antifragile entities benefit from a little stress, he spends a great deal of time belaboring his wariness of “iatrogenic” effects (in which the treatment is worse than the original illness). To a point, most of us would agree. For example, if your blood pressure is only slightly outside of the range of normal, you might be wise not to choose medication as your solution. Slight stresses on the body are indeed natural. I’m not sure I’d agree that your higher reading will make you stronger, but certainly in this case the downsides of the medication may be considerable higher than the benefits it might provide.

Taleb argues that the side effects of medication are unpredictable. We simply don’t have enough history to truly predict outcomes. Medicine is like tobacco, which when it first was introduced was purportedly good for you. There was no “proof ” to the contrary as it took decades for the evidence to accumulate. Thalidomide was prescribed as an antinausea medicine but its side effects on the unborn fetus weren’t clear for a few years. — Derek G. Hennecke on Nassim Taleb's take on medicine

The author, Derek G. Hennecke, is quite negative about Taleb's view on medicine, but I think that Taleb is actually right.

Iatrogenics is when a treatment causes more harm than benefit. As iatros means healer in Greek, the word means “caused by the healer” or “brought by the healer.” Healer, in this sense, need not mean doctor, but anyone intervening to solve a problem. For example, it could be a thought leader, a CEO, a government, or a coalition of the willing. Nassim Taleb calls these people interventionistas. Often these people come armed with solutions to solve the first-order consequences of a decision but create worse second and subsequent order consequences. Luckily, for them at least, they’re never around to see the train wreck they created. — Iatrogenics: Why Intervention Often Leads to Worse Outcomes

As far as I am concerned, we cannot trust the interventionistas, especially, not in the subject of climate change.

For instance, calling out the pharmaceutical industry's manipulation of the medical scientific community seems to invite casting doubt on man-made climate change and the urgency to act with respect to it. — boethius

The problem is not as much the idea of man-made climate change than the idea that we would trust politicians with the power to do something about it. I personally believe that there is not one problem that the government will not make worse. The idea that the French government would be allowed to increase taxes on gasoline has been resolutely rejected by the yellow-vest protestors. I completely agree with them on that point.

For, if the opium crisis resulted from a corrupt manipulation of the scientific medical community, why can't we assume the climate science community is likewise manipulated? — boethius

It probably is. There are important vested interests in peddling the idea. Therefore, it does not even matter whether the climate-change idea is true or not. Some people stand to gain power and money from making sure that people believe it is true, regardless whether it is true or not.

People who were told "opiods, totally safe, science says so" by "scientific medical authorities" and live the terrible consequences are entirely valid in doubting the next important thing scientific institutions tell them to believe. — boethius

And they are right in that regard. If there is doubt possible, they should doubt; especially when it is obvious that some people stand to handsomely profit from the fact that we believe their lies.

In otherwords, dismissing alternatives as ideological whereas one's own position is just "clear epistemic givens" is simply to assume one's ideology is correct and the other's are incorrect without any proper examination. — boethius

This was only the case in the examples examined. It did not extend to any other subject.

I totally distrust the government, especially, when they have seemingly paternalistic motives when trying to make decisions in your stead, for your own good. The ability of politicians, and of the population at large, to see beyond first-order consequences, is abysmal. They are just not smart enough for what they think that they will be doing. Dismissing the interventionistas is almost always the right choice.

An ideology is a set of beliefs and values attributed to a person or group of persons, especially as held for reasons which are not purely epistemic.[1][2] Formerly applied primarily to economic or political theories and policies, in a tradition going back to Karl Marx and Friederich Engels, more recent use treats the term as mainly condemnatory.
— Wikipedia on the term ideology

Survival-through-economic-means is just a modern incarnation of survival-through-hunting. The reasons to do these things are purely epistemic. It would even be possible to experimentally test that a person not acquiring any calories at all on a daily basis ("starvation") would prematurely die. Hence, the survival-through-economic-means approach is not epistemically unsound. — alcontali

So, I don't think you're quite getting my drift. Rather, what I'm saying is that we all know that society is a certain way. By having children, we are consenting to this way of life. It doesn't matter if you are a conspiracy nut, a bit coin enthusiast, or a self-made man, the ways of life of a society are itself pretty well-known. By having a child, you are assenting/agreeing to this way of life FOR another person. One agrees with the ideals (hence ideology) of the ways of life (in whatever multi-faceted way). So you have to broaden your understanding of what an ideology's scope is to the ways of life, and NOT specific means WITHIN those ways of life, which are also rather limiting, even if some are more inventive than others (and usually not the norm).

Your question seems a conundrum if you interpret ideology as "simply ideas that people choose to believe" but ultimately has no justification really in the end. If some ideas in some ideologies, however, are simply true, and at least some truth is needed to live both individually and perpetuate a community, then it's no strange thing that society has a fairly broad consensus of things that just so happen to be true (eating poisonous mushrooms kills you for instance), and people who go outside this ideology (or rather just true things society has learned) die very quickly. — boethius

I think your examples miss the point of the premise. Rather, I am saying that by birthing someone, one is assenting to a set of ideals (one being that at least life is worth living, that the current society is good enough to bring someone into it, that the ways of life of that society are something to instantiate a new person into, etc.).

It is also not strange that entirely categories of tools that have no deducible "true or bestest form" society forms conventions about that get passes from one generation to the next. The typical example is language; we can reason that having words and grammar to express things is useful to have, but we cannot deduce the "best words" and so society picks new words or changes old ones when the want arises in no particularly coherent way. Likewise, some rules of conduct maybe deducible from reasoning or trial and error in a specific form, such as not eating the poison mushrooms or tolerating wanton murdering in the community, while other rules of conduct have no particular justification but are a useful reference point.

This broad ideology anthropologists generally call culture. — boethius

It's about assenting to living in any culture at all.. By birthing new people into a society, one believes that the culture is something to be instantiated for yet another generation. It is an ideology, incarnated into a new person or next generation, to be lived out.. and repeat for another person, and another, and so on. It is not only believing in ideology it is creating new adherents from whole cloth (i.e. birth).

Likewise, the ideology of no ideology is of course itself an ideology. Trying to dismiss world views as ideological and "thus wrong" or "not justifiable really", is simply to claim one's ideology is right without introspection or defense compared to the alternatives. — boethius

Birth by default creates conditions (major ones, like living itself) for another person, so I don't know, I'd say birthing a new person would be the hubris of believing one's ideology (living in the current society's ways of life) MUST be good enough to create conditions for others to HAVE to live in it (lest suicide).

What you described might be best defined as the machinery of ideology. These mechanisms and systems essentially run on autopilot regardless of the individuals keeping it running. Many of them have been in place before you or I were born and will likely persist for generations to come, with slight variation.

When we are born into it we must, as a matter of self-preservation, learn to deal with the systems and machinery around us. — NOS4A2

You make it sound like an inevitability. The "machinery of ideology" is in fact people DECIDING society is good enough to (literally) procreate more people to experience it. That to me sounds like an ideology, not an unchangeable mechanism running in the background. Clearly if people are making new people, they assent to a point of view (an ideology) that they want others to live out as well (having children).

I am posting so this so it shows up in my comments, and I can easily find it. I really want to return to this thread when I am well-rested. It looks like you are serious thinkers worth reading.

Reading the last line

The "machinery of ideology" is in fact people DECIDING society is good enough to (literally) procreate more people to experience it. — schopenhauer1

presses me to say, every society has a subconscious just like individuals and from time to time they need psychoanalysis when their behavior indicates the entity is having a serious problem! The US is in desperate need of psychoanalysis because it is not the democracy it defended in two world wars and it is no longer united and ideologically strong but is divided and destroying itself.

This is the exact process I am describing, you are simply using "ideology" as short hand for "my ideology is right". — boethius

No, it is just standard epistemology.

We just look at how beliefs can be objectively justified, and if they can't, then it is ideology and not knowledge.

What do you mean by saying society is an ideology?

What do you mean by saying society is an ideology? — TheMadFool

Society has certain ways of life that are discernible. These ways of life are its own ideology. Generally in Western society, there is work, etc. As I said in the OP as examples:

In the Western world, industrial production/retail consumption/billions of trade partnerships and contracts/government monetary systems and the like pretty much run the backbone of how we survive. On a daily basis this usually equates to a set work week, probably a weekend and non-work hours, maybe retirement on the horizon, educational institutions while growing up, with overlap. There's literally millions of other things to add here but I don't need to list them all. — schopenhauer1

Further, birth is the gatekeeper for creating more adherents to the ideology. Birth is the ultimate YES! to the ideological underpinnings/ideals of a particular society (way of life). Having children is agreeing with the ways of life (ideology) of society. It also doesn't matter which type of society (tribal, Western, etc.).

Even more, if society is an ideology itself, any political debates are only INTRA-ideological affairs. The root question, is whether we should be promoting the initial ideology itself (society/ways of life) and the way it is promoted, is again, through birth (the ultimate recruitment into the ideology of society itself).

It seems I'll have to agree with you but only partially so because society isn't completely defined by ideology; nevertheless a society can be consumed by an ideology to such an extent that it becomes a defining element of that society. I maybe wrong but society appears to me much more basic than ideology; I mean I can imagine a society without an ideology as such, as a simple coexistence of individuals as I presume chimpanzee societies do.

I mean I can imagine a society without an ideology as such, as a simple coexistence of individuals as I presume chimpanzee societies do. — TheMadFool

I think this is where you get off the track. An ideology has ideas behind it. It is doubtful animal societies (even chimps) have ideas underpinning it. But that's not what I want to argue for or against. Rather, I am arguing that even the very basics of a society- its very ways of life, the very activities that a socio-economic system allows for (work, production, consumption, entertainment, etc.) is itself an ideology. Humans assent to this ideology by having more humans be born into it. Thus, PHILOSOPHICALLY, we should be arguing whether this ORIGINARY ideology is itself worth undertaking, not just INTRA-ideological debates of things like health care, left-wing, right-wing, etc.

I think this is where you get off the track. An ideology has ideas behind it. It is doubtful animal societies (even chimps) have ideas underpinning it. But that's not what I want to argue for or against. Rather, I am arguing that even the very basics of a society- its very ways of life, the very activities that a socio-economic system allows for (work, production, consumption, entertainment, etc.) is itself an ideology. Humans assent to this ideology by having more humans be born into it. Thus, PHILOSOPHICALLY, we should be arguing whether this ORIGINARY ideology is itself worth undertaking, not just INTRA-ideological deba — schopenhauer1

Well, in what way does viewing society as an ideology affect our understanding of ourselves? What impact does it have to you, me and everyone? I mean you make your claim in a tone that makes me feel as if something profound has been discovered but it seems so obvious and trivial. It's probably just me. Anyway, you aren't quite clear on how we "assent to this ideology by having more humans be born to it". I would be especially concerned, given the peculiarities of my circumstances, if an ideology demanded the birth of children just to adopt it. Can you elaborate on that please.

Well, in what way does viewing society as an ideology affect our understanding of ourselves? What impact does it have to you, me and everyone? I mean you make your claim in a tone that makes me feel as if something profound has been discovered but it seems so obvious and trivial. — TheMadFool

Sometimes the obvious is profound, but it just takes a slight perspective change on it :grin: .

Anyway, you aren't quite clear on how we "assent to this ideology by having more humans be born to it". I would be especially concerned, given the peculiarities of my circumstances, if an ideology demanded the birth of children just to adopt it. Can you elaborate on that please. — TheMadFool

Would you agree that generally, a society has a "way of life", general patterns that people follow that are more-or-less the same? We generally have things like work, money, exchange, consumption, etc., right?

Well, in a way, these patterns are not really an ideology UNTIL one decides to become a parent. Then, things do change. Because now there is an evaluation of the this way-of-life as something worth continuing. Now, the ideas and ideals of society are considered as good or bad. Now, you are saying YES! the ideal of working, consuming, entertaining in various ways that we do as a society are GOOD for SOMEONE ELSE. Thus, it is not until the birth decision that society becomes an ideology of weighing of ideas and ideals and assenting to them or not assenting to them.

Thus, debating something like "Should we buy into this ideology of X (government vs. corporate run X, let's say)" is secondary to debating something like "Should we buy into the ideology of the ways of life (society) itself?".

Perhaps it's just me but do people actually consider the whole shebang of an ideology before having children? You shouldn't be asking me but I recall some parents I know warning their children that the road ahead will be tougher than it was for them (the parents). It seems people, ergo parents, are well aware of the situation and work quite hard to prepare their children for what is inevitably going to be a rougher ride to their dreams whatever they maybe.

Therefore, it seems to me, that giving birth isn't an assent to an ideology but rather a bold challenge to it.

I know warning their children that the road ahead will be tougher than it was for them (the parents). — TheMadFool

As an aside, something seems wrong with knowingly putting people in a worse situation.

Therefore, it seems to me, that giving birth isn't an assent to an ideology but rather a bold challenge to it. — TheMadFool

So I think you are still not thinking general enough. I mean, literally the ways of life of a society- how we survive, maintain our comfort levels and environment, and entertain ourselves is an ideology. By giving birth to a new person, you are assenting to that ideology (whatever you think of the current version of that society).

Actually, to add to the above, the ways of life BECOMES an ideology once the birth decision happens. So the way we survive, maintain comfort levels, and environment become an ideology upon deciding for someone else they should live in this society too.

So is society itself a sort of ideology, a sort of "brand" that we as individuals perpetuate through the gateway of birth? It has a way-of-life. By constantly birthing people, we are clearly buying into it. Sure, we might want to change parts of how the backbone runs (free health care vs. private, etc) but generally speaking, the whole pie itself of society (work, entertainment, maintenance/increase comfort levels) seems to be shared by all. Thus, birth essentially pushes this ideology unto a new generation. I think it is an ideology, forced in perpetuity on others. More work, more entertainment, more going to die hacking it in the wilderness if you don't like. There is no option for the no option (non-birth). Once born, you're living the ideology out until you don't (that is you die). — schopenhauer1

You have missed something very important. The US is not the democracy we inherited because of the deliberate manipulation of a few and ignorance of the masses.

The US is what it defended its democracy against and thinking we are the democracy we defended in two world wars is a huge mistake! This change happened the same way Prussia took over Germany and turned it into the strongest military-industrial complex in the world, requiring a united world action to shut it down. If the US had not gotten involved, it would still be the strongest military-industrial complex, not the US. It was the Prussians who turned Germany into a military-industrial complex, not the whole of Germany choosing to take that path. It is people understanding that military-industrial complex, running the US today, not those literate in Greek and Roman classics and who are committed to an enlightened population capable of having liberty and being self-governing.

That is the importance of the 1958 National Defense Education Act. Complete cultural change.

I accept your position that society is an ideology but you seem to think people are unaware of it which is where you're mistaken or so I think.

You still haven't said anything about ideologies enjoining birthing.

Would you agree that generally, a society has a "way of life", general patterns that people follow that are more-or-less the same? We generally have things like work, money, exchange, consumption, etc., right? — schopenhauer1

It is clearly an ideology but not a necessary one.

You can happily adopt a completely different view and function perfectly well inside that society. In fact, you will most likely do better than people who adopt the mainstream ideology. Well, that has always been my impression. I believe that adopting the standard ideology in society will automatically lead to personal failure.

I accept your position that society is an ideology but you seem to think people are unaware of it which is where you're mistaken or so I think. — TheMadFool

It's the implication of this that is most important, not just awareness (though I doubt parents think of birthing children as assenting to an ideology). The implication is that if ideology is debatable, putting new people into these ways-of-life should be debated as well. It is no different a political debate as health care, and in fact is more fundamental and important.

You can happily adopt a completely different view and function perfectly well inside that society. In fact, you will most likely do better than people who adopt the mainstream ideology. Well, that has always been my impression. I believe that adopting the standard ideology in society will automatically lead to personal failure. — alcontali

But the debate isn't about which society is best, but whether it is good to bring someone into any society. See the conversation I'm having with TheMadFool for reference of where I'm going with this. Basically I'm saying that if bringing people into ways of life (any ways of life) is an ideology (you are ASSENTING to a system of life), then birthing new people into a society should be just as debatable as any other ideology.

In a way, an ideology implies something is good for someone, usually not just you but other people (sometimes everybody).

But the debate isn't about which society is best — schopenhauer1

I think that it does not even matter which society is best. In my opinion, you can always personally succeed, as long as you do not adopt its standard collection of lies, i.e. its ideology. In fact, if you do not believe it, it will just not apply to you, because you will trivially bypass all its land mines.

whether it is good to bring someone into any society — schopenhauer1

You will have to axiomatize that belief. You cannot deduce it from other beliefs.

Life in general seems to be naturally inclined to axiomatize that it is a good thing to have offspring. Otherwise, life would probably not even exist.

If you adopt anti-natalist views, then you will not have any offspring, and then this in-existent offspring will not perpetuate your ideas. Hence, the world will be always end up being populated mostly by people who have inherited natalist opinions from their parents. It is just a question of keeping your children away from public-school indoctrination camps operated by anti-natalist cultural Marxists. Therefore, anti-natalism is an "evolutionary dead-end". Still, it is obviously your own choice.

Life in general seems to be naturally inclined to axiomatize that it is a good thing to have offspring. Otherwise, life would probably not even exist. — alcontali

I'm not sure how you are using the term axiomatize. However, I will say that life does not have ideas, only people do. People choose to have offspring. They are following the ideology that ways of life of a society are good. Generally speaking, most humans have to live in some sort of society. Yeah, you can give me some fringe exceptions, but besides that this isn't sustainable as a widespread thing, these fringes are only in relation to the non-fringes, so you need both.

If you adopt anti-natalist views, then you will not have any offspring, and then this in-existent offspring will not perpetuate your ideas. Hence, the world will be always end up being populated mostly by people who have inherited natalist opinions from their parents. It is just a question of keeping your children away from public-school indoctrination camps operated by anti-natalist cultural Marxists. Therefore, anti-natalism is an "evolutionary dead-end". Still, it is obviously your own choice. — alcontali

That is the consequence true. However, I am not saying what the consequences will be but just that indeed birth turns simple "society" into an ideology by wanting it to spread to others (new people). Ideology is not just belief, but usually belief applied to a political and social context (think of Marxism, socialism, free-market capitalism, etc.). Just take the ways-of-life of society and apply that to other people, and you have an ideology of society itself.